Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2004, Vol. 113, No.

1, 160 165

Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0021-843X/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.160

Selective Attention to Angry Faces in Clinical Social Phobia

Karin Mogg
University of Southampton

Pierre Philippot
Universite de Louvain

Brendan P. Bradley
University of Southampton

This study investigated the time course of attentional responses to emotional facial expressions in a clinical sample with social phobia. With a visual probe task, photographs of angry, happy, and neutral faces were presented at 2 exposure durations: 500 and 1,250 ms. At 500 ms, the social phobia group showed enhanced vigilance for angry faces, relative to happy and neutral faces, in comparison with normal controls. In the 1,250-ms condition, there were no significant attentional biases in the social phobia group. Results are consistent with a bias in initial orienting to threat cues in social anxiety. Findings are discussed in relation to recent cognitive models of anxiety disorders.

There is uncertainty about the nature of information processing biases in social anxiety (review by Heinrichs & Hofmann, 2001). General cognitive models of anxiety widely assume that anxious individuals preferentially allocate attention to threatening information (e.g., Eysenck, 1997; Mogg & Bradley, 1998; Williams, Watts, MacLeod, & Mathews, 1997). Similarly, Rapee and Heimberg (1997) propose that socially anxious individuals show enhanced selective attention to threat cues, such as signals of social disapproval or criticism. By contrast, Clark and Wells (1995) propose that, in response to social threat, socially anxious individuals direct attention away from external threat cues and engage in detailed monitoring of themselves; that is, attention becomes selffocused. This view predicts the opposite attentional bias, that is, individuals with social phobia should show reduced processing of external cues relevant to social threat. Furthermore, Clark (1999) suggested that in social phobia, . . . attention away from threat cues may play an important role in the maintenance of this disorder (p. 10). The available evidence of attentional biases in social phobia is mixed. Studies conducted with the modified Stroop task have found greater interference in color-naming social threat words in

Karin Mogg and Brendan P. Bradley, Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, United Kingdom; Pierre Philippot, Faculte de Psychologie, Universite de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. This research was supported by Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique de Belgique Grant 8.4512.98 to Pierre Philippot and Wellcome Trust Grant 051076 to Karin Mogg, who holds a Wellcome Senior Research Fellowship in Basic Biomedical Science. We appreciate the help of Sandrine Charlet, Alexia Chrysochoos, Florence Falise, Serge Gozlan, Hilde Nachtergael, Franc ois Nef, and Guy Sydor in collecting the data. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karin Mogg, Centre for the Study of Emotion and Motivation, Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom. E-mail: k.mogg@soton.ac.uk

individuals with social phobia, as compared with those with panic disorder and normal controls (Hope, Rapee, Heimberg, & Dombeck, 1990; Maidenberg, Chen, Craske, Bohn, & Bytritsky, 1996; Mattia, Heimberg, & Hope, 1993). Such interference effects are commonly assumed to reflect vigilance for threat, but this has been questioned, as de Ruiter and Brosschot (1994) suggested that such interference might instead reflect effortful avoidance of processing threat cues. However, other paradigms have indicated vigilance for threat cues in social phobia: Gilboa-Schechtman, Foa, and Amir (1999) reported that on a visual search task, patients with social phobia showed better detection of angry target faces than happy target faces within arrays of neutral faces. In contrast, Mansell, Clark, Ehlers, and Chen (1999) found, in using a visual probe task, that nonclinical socially anxious individuals showed avoidance of emotional faces (both positive and negative) when under social-evaluative stress. Using the same task, Chen, Ehlers, Clark, and Mansell (2002) found greater avoidance of negative, positive, and neutral faces (relative to household objects) in patients with social phobia compared with normal controls. These findings also contrast with studies of generalized anxiety, which have typically found vigilance for angry faces in anxious individuals on visual probe tasks (e.g., Bradley, Mogg, Falla, & Hamilton, 1998; Bradley, Mogg, White, Groom, & de Bono, 1999; Mogg & Bradley, 1999). As social anxiety and generalized anxiety are commonly correlated (Watson & Friend, 1969), the finding of avoidance of social threat cues in social anxiety seems surprising. Thus, some studies suggest vigilance for social threat cues in social anxiety, whereas others suggest avoidance. Direct comparison of these previous studies is complicated by methodological differences (e.g., use of word versus pictorial stimuli, type of task and control stimuli). The main purpose of the present study is to investigate further whether patients with generalized social phobia show an attentional bias toward or against social threat cues. The study uses the same methodology (i.e., visual probe task with
160

SHORT REPORTS

161 Method

emotional faces) as that used in previous studies, which have consistently shown attentional vigilance for angry faces in nonclinical and clinical generalized anxiety (Bradley et al., 1998, 1999; Mogg & Bradley, 1999). Thus, comparison of the results obtained here with results from these previous studies should clarify whether social anxiety has a distinctive pattern of attentional bias. A further aim of the present study is to examine the time course of attentional responses to emotional faces in clinical social phobia. There is considerable evidence that attention is not a unitary mechanism and that it is important to distinguish between processes involved in the initial orienting and maintenance of attention (e.g., LaBerge, 1995). Indeed, some models of anxiety propose that attention may be initially directed to threat cues but is not necessarily maintained on them, and that, after initial orienting to threat, anxious individuals may even show subsequent avoidance of anxiety-provoking stimuli, that is, a vigilantavoidant pattern of attentional bias (e.g., Mogg & Bradley, 1998; Williams, Watts, MacLeod, & Mathews, 1988; for relevant empirical evidence, see also Amir, Foa, & Coles, 1998; Bradley et al., 1998; Mogg, Bradley, de Bono, & Painter, 1997; Mogg, Bradley, Miles, & Dixon, in press; Mogg, Mathews, & Weinman, 1987). Subsequent attentional avoidance may reflect an attempt to alleviate an anxious mood state that is provoked by initial orienting to the threat cues. The present study investigated biases in initial orienting versus maintained attention by manipulating the exposure duration of the face stimuli (cf. Bradley et al., 1998). Pairs of faces were presented in a visual probe task (e.g., an angry face paired with a neutral face). Immediately after the offset of each face pair, a probe stimulus appeared in the location of one of the faces. Participants were required to respond to the probe as quickly as possible. Vigilance for angry faces was indicated by faster response times (RTs) to probes replacing angry faces than neutral faces, as RTs are typically faster to stimuli that appear in an attended, rather than unattended, region of a display (Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980). The face pairs were presented for either 500 ms, to assess initial orienting, or 1,250 ms, to assess subsequent attentional biases. The 500-ms condition has been used extensively with both word and face stimuli to demonstrate vigilance for threat in generalized anxiety (e.g., Bradley et al., 1998; Broadbent & Broadbent, 1988; Fox, 1993; MacLeod, Mathews, & Tata, 1986), thereby allowing comparison of findings across a wide range of studies. Although, in theory, it is possible that more than one shift of attention may occur within 500 ms, this duration has been assumed to reflect the initial shift of attention (e.g., Williams et al., 1988). Moreover, this view is supported by evidence from an eye movement study of concordance between the attentional bias measure derived from probe RT data (using 500-ms displays) and the direction of initial shift in gaze to emotional faces (Bradley, Mogg, & Millar, 2000). The duration of 1,250 ms was included to examine whether attentional biases for angry faces would be sustained over this longer time interval. We predicted that individuals with clinical social phobia would show initial vigilance for angry faces at the shorter stimulus duration (500 ms) but not necessarily at the longer stimulus duration (1,250 ms) where they may show avoidance of threat.

Participants
The social anxiety group consisted of 15 individuals (8 male, 7 female; mean age 31 years, SD 13) with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMIV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) diagnosis of generalized social phobia as determined in a semistructured interview conducted by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist (Mini International Neuro-psychiatric Interview [MINI]; Lecrubier, Weiller, Bonora, Amorin, & Le pine, 1994; Sheehan et al., 1998). The participants were recruited from individuals applying for social phobia treatment at the psychotherapy service at the University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, or by local town advertisement. Volunteers with additional Axis I DSMIV diagnoses, as established by the MINI, were excluded. The control group consisted of 15 participants (8 male, 7 female; mean age 32 years, SD 13) with no known history of psychological disorders. The latter was assessed by the MINI and also by supplementary questions concerning whether they had previously experienced an emotional disorder, or had consulted a psychologist, physician, or other professional, or had received medication for such a disorder. The control group was matched as closely as possible with the clinical group for age, gender, and educational status.

Materials
The face stimuli were the same as in Bradley et al. (1998), that is, 32 angry and 32 happy faces. Each emotional face was matched with a neutral face of the same person. There were an additional 16 face pairs, each comprising two neutral faces, which were used as fillers. Each face pair depicted a different person. Each face was approximately 45 75 mm when displayed on the screen, with a distance of 115 mm between their centers, and shown on a white background.

Procedure
Participants attended two sessions. During the first, they were assessed for their suitability for the study, which included the diagnostic interview, and they filled out French translations of the following questionnaires: Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE; Watson & Friend, 1969), Social Anxiety and Distress Scale (SADS; Watson & Friend, 1969), StateTrait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck & Steer, 1987), and Social Desirability Scale (SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). In the second session, participants completed the visual probe task. Immediately prior, the participants carried out a short masked version of the task, which is not reported in detail here as it showed no significant effects, which may be due to methodological variables that are of little theoretical interest (e.g., masking conditions may have been too effective). The procedure for the main visual probe task was similar to that of Bradley et al. (1998). Each trial started with a central fixation cross for 500 ms, followed by a face pair for either 500 ms or 1,250 ms. Following the offset of the face pair, a probe stimulus (an arrow pointing either up or down) appeared in the location of one of the faces. Participants were asked to press as quickly and accurately as possible one of two keys, on a response box, corresponding to the direction of the arrow. Each face pair was displayed twice (64 trials with angryneutral faces, 64 with happyneutral faces, 32 with neutralneutral fillers). There was an equal number of trials in each condition as a function of stimulus duration (500 or 1,250 ms), emotional face location (left or right), probe location (left or right), and probe type (up or down arrow). The trials were presented in a new, fully random order for each participant. There were 16 practice, 2 buffer, and 160 experimental trials.

162 Data Preparation

SHORT REPORTS

RTs from trials with errors were excluded, and those more than two standard deviations above the mean were discarded as outliers. One member of the social phobia group had highly variable RTs (RT variance was more than seven standard deviations above the mean variance of the remaining sample) and was excluded from further analyses. The groups did not significantly differ in error rate (3.5% of data) or in outliers (3.8%). As the primary variable of interest is whether participants show vigilance or avoidance of emotional faces, attentional bias scores were calculated for each participant, separately for each emotional face type and stimulus duration (cf. Bradley et al., 1998; MacLeod & Mathews, 1988). That is, bias scores were calculated by subtracting the mean RT when the probe was in the same location as the emotional face from the mean RT when the probe and emotional face were in different locations (see Table 1 for mean RTs in each condition). Thus, a positive bias score for angry faces indicates faster RTs to probes replacing angry faces than neutral faces, that is, vigilance for threat.

Results Group Characteristics

Compared with normal controls, the social anxiety group had higher FNE, SADS, STAI-state and trait anxiety, and BDI scores (see Table 1 for means and t test results).

Visual Probe Task

The attentional bias scores were entered into a 2 2 2 mixed design analysis of variance (ANOVA) with group (social anxiety vs. control) as a between-subjects variable, and face type (angry vs. happy) and exposure duration (500 vs. 1,250 ms) as withinsubjects variables. There was a significant main effect of face type,

F(1, 27) 7.09, p .05, and a significant interaction of Social Anxiety Group Face Type Exposure Duration, F(1, 27) 4.51, p .05, which is shown in Figure 1. To clarify the three-way interaction, separate ANOVAs were carried out of bias scores in each exposure condition, with social anxiety group and emotional face type as independent variables. In the 500-ms exposure condition, there was a significant Group Emotional Face Type interaction, F(1, 27) 5.00, p .05. There was a significant effect of emotional face type on bias scores in social phobics, who showed greater vigilance for angry than happy faces, t(13) 2.58, p .05. A contrast of their bias scores against a value of zero confirmed that the social anxiety group was more vigilant for angry faces, relative to neutral faces, t(13) 2.29, p .05). Their mean bias scores for happy faces in the 500-ms condition did not differ significantly from zero, t(13) 1.11, ns. Controls showed no significant effect of emotional face type on bias scores in the 500-ms condition, and no evidence of a bias for either angry or happy faces. An ANOVA of bias scores in the 1,250-ms condition showed only a main effect of emotional face type, F(1, 27) 6.49, p .05, indicating generally more vigilance for angry than happy faces. Although there seemed to be a trend for social phobics to be less vigilant for emotional faces than controls, the effect of group was not significant, F(1, 27) 2.67, p .11, nor was the Group Face Type interaction, F 1. The pattern of means also seemed suggestive of a group difference in bias scores for angry faces in the 1,250-ms condition, but the result of this post hoc comparison was not significant, t(27) 1.78, p .09. Correlations between the attentional bias and questionnaire measures showed no significant results in the social phobia group. However, in controls, bias scores for angry faces at 500 ms

Table 1 Mean Questionnaire Scores and Response Times (RTs) in Each Condition for Social Phobia and Normal Control Groups
Social phobia Variable M SD Normal control M SD t(27)a p

Questionnaire scores Fear of Negative Evaluation Social Avoidance and Distress STAIState Anxiety STAITrait Anxiety Beck Depression Inventory Social Desirability Scale 25.8 21.1 44.8 55.5 14.4 16.1 3.8 4.3 12.8 12.7 6.7 5.3 13.9 5.9 34.2 36.3 4.4 14.9 7.8 6.2 7.3 10.5 4.7 6.4 5.16 7.64 2.74 4.41 4.67 0.55 .01 .01 .05 .01 .01 ns

RTs (in milliseconds) to probes in same versus different position as emotional face Angry face 500 ms; same position Angry face 500 ms; different position Angry face 1,250 ms; same position Angry face 1,250 ms; different position Happy face 500 ms; same position Happy face 500 ms; different position Happy face 1,250 ms; same position Happy face 1,250 ms; different position
a

654.2 675.1 640.5 641.4 666.3 650.3 648.7 634.8

132.7 136.8 137.8 114.3 139.6 128.1 131.5 108.0

638.9 638.9 612.0 635.8 628.1 635.9 625.1 626.7

117.7 112.7 103.3 108.7 107.9 119.1 108.0 108.4

Note. STAI State Trait Anxiety Inventory. df 26 for STAI and Social Desirability Scale scores as a result of missing data for these measures.

SHORT REPORTS

163

Figure 1. Mean attentional bias scores (in milliseconds) for angry and happy faces, relative to neutral faces, in the 500-ms and 1,250-ms exposure duration conditions in the social phobia and normal control groups.

correlated positively with FNE scores (.60, p .05), whereas bias scores for angry faces at 1,250 ms correlated negatively with FNE (.72), STAIState Anxiety (.76), STAI-Trait Anxiety (.64), and BDI (.54) scores, ps .05. Bias scores for happy faces at 500 ms also correlated negatively with FNE (.62) and BDI scores (.58), ps .05. Thus, in controls, increased social anxiety is associated with greater vigilance for angry faces at 500 ms, whereas increased anxiety is associated with less vigilance for angry faces at 1,250 ms.

Discussion
The results suggest that when attentional responses are assessed 500 ms after the onset of the faces, individuals with clinical social phobia show an attentional bias toward angry faces, relative to neutral and happy faces. The control group as a whole showed no bias for angry or happy faces in the 500-ms condition, although correlations suggest that vigilance for angry faces was associated with social anxiety (FNE scores) within the sample of normal volunteers. The results from the 500-ms condition were consistent, with enhanced initial orienting toward threat cues in social anxiety. They are also in line with expectation from general cognitive models of anxiety, which propose that vigilance for threat is mediated by cognitive mechanisms operating early in information processing, which evaluate the emotional significance of external stimuli and direct attentional resources toward threat cues in the

hman, 1996; Wilenvironment (e.g., Mogg & Bradley, 1998; O liams et al., 1997). The 1,250-ms exposure condition showed a different pattern of results, namely, a general attentional bias across both groups in favor of angry faces relative to happy faces. Although the pattern of means suggests that normal controls showed relatively enhanced vigilance for angry faces at 1,250 ms, this observation was not supported by the ANOVA results, which showed no significant main effect or interaction involving group. Thus, there was evidence of initial vigilance for threat in social anxiety at 500 ms but no evidence of significant vigilance, or avoidance, at the longer stimulus duration of 1,250 ms in the clinical group. Hence, this study failed to find the predicted avoidance of threat in the clinical group at the longer stimulus exposure duration, which might partly stem from a limitation of the visual probe task, as it only provides a snapshot view of the attention bias at each stimulus duration. The longer duration of 1,250 ms allows ample opportunity for multiple shifts in covert and overt orienting between the faces in each pair. A vigilantavoidant pattern of attention bias may exert conflicting effects on the maintenance of attention (i.e., vigilant monitoring of threat conflicting with avoidant strategies that serve to reduce subjective discomfort and exposure to noxious stimuli). If so, after initially orienting to threat, the focus of attention of anxious individuals may be unstable, with a tendency to shift attention repeatedly toward and away

164

SHORT REPORTS

from threat (Mogg & Bradley, 1998). Such an unstable attentional response pattern might be difficult to detect with only one or two stimulus exposure durations, as the effects of vigilant and avoidant response tendencies on the probe RT measure of attentional bias may counteract each other at longer exposure durations. Thus, alternative paradigms may be more fruitful, such as online monitoring of eye movements during attentional tasks. Nevertheless, the finding of attentional vigilance for angry faces at 500 ms in social anxiety is consistent with results from previous studies showing similar attentional biases in high trait anxiety (e.g., Bradley et al., 1998; Mogg & Bradley, 1999). It also concurs with other evidence of vigilance for social threat cues in generalized social phobia from different attentional paradigms, such as the visual search task (Gilboa-Schechtman et al., 1999). Moreover, it is compatible with expectation from several general cognitive hman, 1996; models of anxiety (e.g., Mogg & Bradley, 1998; O Williams et al., 1997) as well as from Rapee and Heimbergs (1997) specific model of social anxiety. Thus, the key finding from the present study, which is indicative of initial vigilance for threat cues in social anxiety, seems in line with an extensive body of theoretical and empirical work in clinical and nonclinical anxiety. In contrast, the present results seem at odds with two recent visual probe studies. Mansell et al. (1999) found avoidance of emotional faces (both negative and positive), presented for 500 ms, in nonclinical socially anxious individuals under social-evaluative stress. In a study from the same research group, Chen et al. (2002) found that patients with social phobia were avoidant of negative faces, as well as positive and neutral faces, relative to household objects. These studies suggest that social phobia has a different pattern of attentional bias from other anxiety disorders, with social phobia being characterized by attentional avoidance, rather than vigilance for external threat cues (see Clark, 1999). What might explain the discrepant findings of attentional biases in social anxiety? Given that Mansell et al. (1999) and Chen et al. (2002) used a 500-ms stimulus duration, it seems difficult to provide a simple account for the discrepancies between their findings and those of the present study in terms of the time course of the attentional bias. However, there are several methodological differences between the studies, such as different negative face stimuli (these were all angry in the present study vs. a mixture of angry, sad, frightened, and disgusted expressions in Chen et al., 2002) and, more notably, different control stimuli (neutral faces vs. household objects). However, to reconcile the discrepant findings, it might also be helpful to consider additional cognitive mechanisms, besides those which control initial vigilance for threat. There are a wide range of fear-related and defensive behaviors, which include not only vigilance for threat, but also behavioral inhibition, startle, fight, and flight, including avoidance and escape hman, 2000; McNaughton & Gray, responses (Lang, Davis, & O 2000; Rosen & Schulkin, 1998). Such behaviors form a repertoire of species-specific reactions to threat, which are innately and rapidly available to the individual (Bolles, 1970). Some social cues may trigger specific defensive response patterns in primates; for example, faces with direct eye contact may elicit avoidant and escape responses in socially submissive individuals (Trower & Gilbert, 1989). Such responses may be readily triggered in social phobia and may be revealed when there is an option of attending to inanimate objects rather than faces (Chen et al., 2002). Thus, in

social anxiety, a specific mechanism may underlie avoidance of faces, relative to nonsocial stimuli. This may operate in parallel with other cognitive mechanisms that control anxiety-related vigilance for threat cues. Thus, as discussed earlier, social anxiety appears to be associated with attentional vigilance for threat cues, and it seems likely that this cognitive bias is mediated by the same underlying cognitive mechanism that underlies attentional biases in other anxiety disorders, such as generalized anxiety. However, under certain circumstances, such as when there is a choice of attending to nonsocial cues rather than faces (as suggested by Chen et al.), this vigilance might be inhibited by a specific mechanism which mediates socially submissive behaviors, such as avoidance and withdrawal responses to challenging social signals. To summarize, the present study provides evidence that is consistent with initial vigilance for angry faces in clinical social anxiety, which concurs with much theoretical and empirical work in the field of cognitive biases in anxiety states and disorders (e.g., hman, 1996; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997; Mogg & Bradley, 1998; O Williams et al., 1997). To reconcile this conclusion with Chen et al.s (2002) findings, it would be helpful for future research to clarify whether there might be other competing cognitive mechanisms operating in social anxiety, which may counteract this attentional vigilance for threat cues.

References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Amir, N., Foa, E. B., & Coles, M. E. (1998). Automatic activation and strategic avoidance of threat-relevant information in social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 285290. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Bolles, R. C. (1970). Species-specific defense reactions and avoidance learning. Psychological Review, 77, 32 48. Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., Falla, S. J., & Hamilton, L. R. (1998). Attentional bias for threatening facial expressions in anxiety: Manipulation of stimulus duration. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 737753. Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., & Millar, N. (2000). Biases in overt and covert orienting to emotional facial expressions. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 789 808. Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., White, J., Groom, C., & de Bono, J. (1999). Attentional bias for emotional faces in generalised anxiety disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 267278. Broadbent, D., & Broadbent, M. (1988). Anxiety and attentional bias: State and trait. Cognition and Emotion, 2, 165183. Chen, Y. P., Ehlers, A., Clark, D. M., & Mansell, W. (2002). Patients with social phobia direct their attention away from faces. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 40, 677 687. Clark, D. M. (1999). Anxiety disorders: Why they persist and how to treat them. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 37, 527. Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. Heimberg, M. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment and treatment. New York: Guilford Press. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley. de Ruiter, C., & Brosschot, J. F. (1994). The emotional Stroop interference in anxiety: Attentional bias or cognitive avoidance. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 32, 315319. Eysenck, M. W. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: A unified theory. Hove, England: Erlbaum.

SHORT REPORTS Fox, E. (1993). Allocation of visual attention and anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 207215. Gilboa-Schechtman, E., Foa, E. B., & Amir, N. (1999). Attentional biases for facial expressions in social phobia: The face-in-the-crowd paradigm. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 305318. Heinrichs, N., & Hofmann, S. G. (2001). Information processing in social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 751770. Hope, D. A., Rapee, R. M., Heimberg, R. G., & Dombeck, M. J. (1990). Representations of the self in social phobia: Vulnerability to social threat. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 177189. LaBerge, D. (1995). Attentional processing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. hman, A. (2000). Fear and anxiety: Animal Lang, P. J., Davis, M., & O models and human cognitive psychopharmacology. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61, 137159. Lecrubier, Y., Weiller, E., Bonora, L. I., Amorin, P., & Le pine, J-P. (1994). French adaptation of the Mini International Neuro-psychiatric Interview (MINI 4.4). Internal report, Unite INSERM 302. Ho pital de la Salpe trie ` re, Paris, France. MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1988). Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 653 670. MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 1520. Maidenberg, E., Chen, E., Craske, M., Bohn, P., & Bytritsky, A. (1996). Specificity of attentional bias in panic disorder and social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 10, 529 541. Mansell, W., Clark, D. M., Ehlers, A., & Chen, Y. P. (1999). Social anxiety and attention away from emotional faces. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 673 690. Mattia, J. I., Heimberg, R. G., & Hope, D. A. (1993). The revised Stroop color-naming task in social phobics. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 305313. McNaughton, N., & Gray, J. A. (2000). Anxiolytic action on the behavioural inhibition system implies multiple types of arousal contribute to anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61, 161176. Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (1998). A cognitivemotivational analysis of anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 809 848. Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (1999). Some methodological issues in assessing attentional biases for threatening faces in anxiety: A replication study using a modified version of the probe detection task. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 595 604.

165

Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., de Bono, J., & Painter, M. (1997). Time course of attentional bias for threat information in non-clinical anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 297303. Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Miles, F., & Dixon, R. (in press). Time course of attentional bias for threat scenes: Testing the vigilanceavoidance hypothesis. Cognition and Emotion. Mogg, K., Mathews, A., & Weinman, J. (1987). Memory bias in clinical anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 94 98. hman, A. (1996). Preferential preattentive processing of threat in anxiety: O Preparedness and attentional biases. In R. M. Rapee (Ed.), Current controversies in the anxiety disorders. New York: Guilford Press. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160 174. Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A model of social phobia. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 741756. Rosen, J. B., & Schulkin, J. (1998). From normal fear to pathological anxiety. Psychological Review, 105, 325350. Sheehan, D. V., Lecrubier, Y., Harnett-Sheehan, K., Amorim, P., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., et al. (1998). The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSMIV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59(Suppl. 20), 2233. Spielberger, D. C., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Trower, P., & Gilbert, P. (1989). New theoretical conceptions of social anxiety and social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 19 35. Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448 457. Williams, J. M. G., Watts, F. N., MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1988). Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders. Chichester, England: Wiley. Williams, J. M. G., Watts, F. N., MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1997). Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Received June 26, 2002 Revision received June 24, 2003 Accepted July 8, 2003